Provisional IRA: Alleged Security Force Collusion in the Irish Republic

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they are making in their representations to the Government of the Irish Republic into alleged security force collusion with the Provisional IRA in the Irish Republic.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have not made representations to the Irish Government on this issue. We do accept as do the Irish that certain cases from the past remain a source of grave public concern, particularly those giving rise to serious allegations of collusion by the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This was one of the issues dealt with in the package of proposals the UK and Irish Governments put to the parties on 1 August. These proposals flowed from the intensive discussions the Irish and we have been engaged in with the parties in recent weeks. The aim of those discussions was to help deliver the full and early implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The package addresses the four outstanding issues: policing, the stability of the institutions, security normalisation and decommissioning. We have invited the parties to give their views on these proposals.
	On the issue of alleged collusion, the package includes a proposal that the UK and Irish Governments will appoint a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake a thorough examination of such allegations in the cases of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, along with those of Mr Finucane and Mrs Nelson, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright.
	Subject to the parties' agreement on the overall package, it is intended that the investigation of each individual case would begin no later than the end of April 2002, unless this is clearly prejudicial to forthcoming prosecution at that time.
	We will publish detailed terms of reference. However, the appointed judge will be asked to review all the papers, interview anyone who can help, establish the facts and will report with recommendations for any further action. If the independent judge recommends a public inquiry in any case, the relevant government will implement that recommendation.
	We believe that this approach represents a genuine attempt to respond to the legitimate needs and concerns of those bereaved as a result of these appalling outrages. In dealing with the allegations of collusion once and for all, it will allow us to draw a final line under the past.

Provisional IRA: Creation

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they are making in their representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning an inquiry into allegations of the government's part in the creation of the Provisional IRA in 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government have made no such representations.

Northern Ireland: Deaths since 1969 as a Result of the Security Situation

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people, from 1968 to date, were killed in the "troubles" associated with Northern Ireland, distinguishing civilian, paramilitary and security force victims.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The attached table provides details of the number of persons including members of the security forces and civilians who were killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland since 1969, the date when records began. It is not possible to be definitive in determining if someone who is killed is associated with a specific group. Any information that may exist about the paramilitary membership of victims would often be as a result of intelligence and therefore inappropriate to be placed in the public domain.
	
		Statistics from 1969 to 14 October 2001 Deaths as a Result of the Security Situation
		
			  RUC RUC/R Army UDR/RIR Civilian Total 
			 1969 1 -- -- -- 13 14 
			 1970 2 -- -- -- 23 25 
			 1971 11 -- 43 5 115 174 
			 1972 14 3 105 26 322 470 
			 1973 10 3 58 8 173 252 
			 1974 12 3 30 7 168 220 
			 1975 7 4 14 6 216 247 
			 1976 13 10 14 15 245 297 
			 1977 8 6 15 14 69 112 
			 1978 4 6 14 7 50 81 
			 1979 9 5 38 10 51 113 
			 1980 3 6 8 9 50 76 
			 1981 13 8 10 13 57 101 
			 1982 8 4 21 7 57 97 
			 1983 9 9 5 10 44 77 
			 1984 7 2 9 10 36 64 
			 1985 14 9 2 4 26 55 
			 1986 10 2 4 8 37 61 
			 1987 9 7 3 8 68 95 
			 1988 4 2 21 12 55 94 
			 1989 7 2 12 2 39 62 
			 1990 7 5 7 8 49 76 
			 1991 5 1 5 8 75 94 
			 1992 2 1 4 2 76 85 
			 1993 3 3 6 2 70 84 
			 1994 3 -- 1 2 56 62 
			 1995 1 -- -- -- 8 9 
			 1996 -- -- 1 -- 14 15 
			 1997 3 1 1 -- 17 22 
			 1998 1 -- 1 -- 53 55 
			 1999 -- -- -- -- 7 7 
			 2000 -- -- -- -- 18 18 
			 2001 
			 (To 14 Oct) -- -- -- -- 11 11 
			  
			 Total 200 102 452 203 2,368 3,325

Republic of Ireland: Arms Dumps

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many terrorist arms dumps they estimate are located in the Republic of Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The determination of the number of unlawful arms dumps in the Republic of Ireland is a matter of continual analysis by the Garda based on operational intelligence. It is not the practice of the Garda to comment publicly on such matters. The Garda seize any illegally held arms whenever they can and will continue to do so. The decommissioning Act 1997, and regulations made under it, provide for the decommissioning of such arms.

Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment Policy

Lord Rogan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How long they envisage the so-called 50:50 recruitment policy to be sustained for trainees joining the police service of Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The 50:50 recruitment policy is subject to review and renewal every three years. In deciding whether to renew the provisions, the Secretary of State will have regard to the progress which has been made towards securing a representative police service. He will also consult with the Policing Board, and others with a particular interest, such as the Equality Commission.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they propose to announce the new members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and whether they will ensure that any appointments reflect a community balance in the commission.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: We hope to announce the outcome of the recent competition for appointment to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the near future. In making his decision, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will comply with his statutory duty under Section 68(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to "as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland".

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they propose to take to ensure that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission acts within its legal limit.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The functions of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are clearly set out in Section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is open to anyone who believes the commission is acting outwith its remit and who has suffered detriment as a result of this to seek a judicial review of the commission's actions. However, the Government would also welcome specific concerns being drawn to their attention.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission made any statements following the murder of the journalist Martin O'Hagan; and, if not, why not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The chief commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish a list of venues for public consultations which the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission propose to hold before 1 December 2001.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The chief commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is taking to consult Peers and Members of Parliament about aspects of human rights; and whether they can ensure that, once arrangements are made, these consultations actually take place.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The chief commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

Written Answers

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the usual timetable for the answering of Questions for Written answer; and whether they consider that Questions tabled on 2 July, 3 July and 4 July should have been answered by now.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government endeavour to answer all questions within two weeks. All of the questions referred to should have been answered within this time scale. I regret that they were not but can assure the noble Lord that they are in the process of being answered, or have already been answered.

Yvonne Ridley: Release

Lord Monson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any concessions or promises were made to the Taliban in return for the release of Yvonne Ridley.

Baroness Amos: No.

EU Common Position on Burma

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there have been any recent changes to the EU Common Position on Burma.

Baroness Amos: Changes in Burma in the past nine months give grounds for cautious optimism. But the rapprochement between the regime and the domestic opposition remains fragile and reversible. Until Burma is firmly embarked on a return to constitutional, democratic rule, it would not be appropriate to suspend or remove the core elements of the EU common position. The General Affairs Council of 8 October therefore decided to renew the common position for a further six months. The core elements of the common position are to remain unchanged, with the addition of required legal clarification that enables EU member states to fulfil their UN obligations by allowing Burmese Ministers to attend UN conferences in the EU.
	However, in recognition of the progress achieved to date and in expectation of further positive developments, the EU Council conclusions on 8 October set out a modest first package of positive measures. We stand ready to consider what further measures might be appropriate if change in Burma accelerates significantly. Conversely, if progress were to stall or fail, UK/EU policy would need to be tightened again.

Armed Forces: Retention of Medical Officers

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they intend to take to retain doctors in the Armed Forces.

Lord Bach: The retention of experienced medical officers is a key element in our plans for restoring the operational capability of the Defence Medical Services (DMS). We recognise that both financial and non-financial measures have a part to play in improving retention. So far as financial measures are concerned, the Ministry of Defence submits evidence on the pay of DMS medical and dental officers each year to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. This year, on the review body's recommendation, we have introduced commission transfer grants of £16,000 (gross before tax) to encourage medical officers who are general medical practitioners to transfer from short career commissions to longer commissions. We also keep under review the use of other financial incentives to encourage retention. We have addressed complaints by medical officers about differing terms of service between the three services and plans for implementing common terms of service are well advanced. Non-financial measures we have taken to help reduce overstretch and, thus, encourage retention include targeting recruitment at fully vocationally trained doctors and reducing the length and frequency of operational deployments for hospital specialists. We believe that the creation of the new Centre for Defence Medicine at Birmingham, which we intend will become a recognised centre of excellence in military medicine, is a further important factor in encourging both the recruitment and retention of medical officers.

Armed Forces: Healthcare

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will offer private healthcare to the Armed Forces as part of their employment contract, given the difficulty for servicemen and women in enrolling on National Health Service lists because of frequent relocation; and if not, why not.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has an obligation to ensure that personnel of the Armed Forces have access to appropriate medical care in all circumstances, whether in the UK, at bases abroad, or when deployed on exercises or operations. Primary care is provided by military GPs and civilian medical practitioners employed by the MoD who, in the UK, may refer personnel needing hospital treatment to Minsitry of Defence hospital units (MDHUs), or in some cases, to NHS hospitals which do not host MDHUs. During 2000-01, the MoD supplemented these arrangements with a special waiting list initiative in order to return service personnel in shortage categories to deployability more quickly. For the future, arrangements for medical care are being addressed by a medical quinquennial review, which will be considering, among other things, the most appropriate pattern for hospital care to meet the requirements of the Armed Forces.

Operational Welfare Package: Personnel on Exercise Saif Sareea II

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider paying retrospectively an overseas living allowance to the personnel on Exercise Saif Sareea who failed to receive the operational welfare package that was introduced in April of this year.

Lord Bach: No. Local overseas allowance is a payment to compensate individuals for the necessary day-to-day costs of serving overseas. It is not part of the military salary nor is it a reward for serving overseas. It offers at best an inefficient method of providing for welfare and is not considered appropriate for service personnel already in receipt of the operational welfare package (OWP).
	We undertook a "from first principles" review of operational welfare in 1999 to seek a solution to a legacy of ad hoc and inequitable welfare provision in different theatres. The review determined that the most appropriate method of providing welfare support to service personnel deployed on operations was through the delivery of a comprehensive OWP. This was introduced in April 2001.
	For Exercise Saif Sareea II the OWP includes: the installation of 676 telephones and a personal allowance of 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week; free forces aerogrammes and concessionary parcel rates; access to the Internet and e-mail; newspapers and book packs; BFBS TV and radio; televisions, video recorders and video tapes; Expeditionary Forces Institute shops; publicly funded laundry and a combined services entertainment show.
	Although there have been occasional difficulties in delivering all elements of the OWP on time in some of the remote locations and in the harsh environment of Oman, service personnel on Exercise Saif Sareea II have generally received the OWP in full and work will continue to refine provision of the OWP.

Radar Data: Retention

Lord Hill-Norton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 25 January (WA 22) which stated that radar data are only retained for 30 days and paper records for three years, why RAF Watton was able to confirm in writing to a member of the public in 1989 that it had a record of an unidentified flying object report over RAF Bentwaters, timed at 3.25 am on 28 December 1980.

Lord Bach: As a general rule recorded radar data is retained for 30 days before being reused and air traffic control watch logs are destroyed after three years. Our searches have not revealed examples of any archived letters between RAF Watton and members of the public on the subject in question dating from 1989. I am, therefore, unable to comment on the correspondence to which the noble and gallant Lord refers.

Race Relations Act 1976: Section 71 Orders

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will bring forward secondary legislation under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Lord Rooker: We have today laid two orders under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000).
	The orders bring into effect the proposals set out in the consultation document on implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 which was published on 22 February this year.
	The first order brings some 300 additional bodies (or groups of bodies) within the scope of the general duty to promote race equality. The second imposes specific duties on the policy and service delivery functions of key public bodies to which the general duty applies, to ensure their better performance of the general duty. Separate duties are placed on schools and other educational bodies. It also places duties on the employment functions of bodies to which the general duty applies. The orders will come into force on 3 December 2001.

Passenger Aircraft: Evasive Action

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether pilots of British passenger aircraft have the same freedom of evasive action as their United States counterparts if they have to deal with hijack situations.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are not aware of any such freedom for US pilots. Extreme manoeuvres by aircraft could pose a significant risk to the safety of an aircraft and its passengers.

Railtrack: Thameslink 2000 Costs

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the administration order served on Railtrack on 7 October, how they intend to recover the £800 million already paid to Railtrack out of public funds for the construction of Thameslink 2000 and on which no works have yet started.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not correct that £800 million of public funds has been spent on this project; £800 million is Railtrack's last official estimate of the total costs of the project when completed. Whether those costs, or any revised level of costs coming out of the procurement review which Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority are undertaking, are incurred will depend upon the outcome of Railtrack's application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The order which, if made, would give the promoters the powers they need to carry out the work, has been the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector's report is expected in the spring of 2002 and it will then be for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to decide whether to make the order.
	At this stage, any costs which Railtrack has incurred, for instance in taking the project forward to the Transport and Works Act stage, have been incurred by Railtrack in order to comply with its obligations pursuant to the Thameslink 2000 agreement. They have thus been incurred by Railtrack on its own account.

M6: Lighting

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to provide lighting to unlit sections of the M6 between junction 19 of the M1 and junction 5 of the M6; what are the estimated current costs; and what are the completion dates.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the noble Lord.
	Letter to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, dated 24 October 2001.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Falconer, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the provision of lighting on the unlit sections of the M6 between junction 19 of the M1 and junction 5 of the M6.
	The Highways Agency is responsible for the management of the motorway network, including the provision of lighting. When considering whether or not to light a particular section of motorway, the Agency is required to strike a balance between the potential benefits anticipated from reduced accidents and the capital maintenance and energy costs which would be incurred. Increasingly, account must also be taken of the results of environmental pollution from any additional lighting, particularly in rural areas where there is little or no existing light pollution. In effect, this means that lighting is only installed where there is a poor night-time accident record.
	The M6 is currently lit at its junction with the M1 (Junction 19), at Junction 2 and north of Junction 4. We estimate that the cost of lighting the remaining sections would be in the region of £7 million. However, there are no plans at present to provide any additional lighting on this length as the accident rate is lower than on other comparable sections of unlit motorway. In the circumstances, such expenditure would be difficult to justify given that there are greater priorities elsewhere.
	If you would like further information, please contact Peter Adams at our Birmingham office. He can be contacted at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8215.

Abandoned Vehicles

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they intend to do about the increasing number of vehicles abandoned by the roadside.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government share the noble Lord's concerns about the growing problem of abandoned cars and expect to announce proposals for dealing with this problem by 31 October.

Mr Alun Evans

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 18 October, whether the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, or his special adviser, Miss Moore, were involved in any discussions or correspondence relating to the removal of Mr Alun Evans from his post prior to his removal; and if so, whether those discussions or correspondence at any point concerned Mr Bob Kiley.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I refer the noble Baroness to my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil (Official Report, 18/10/01; Col. 707).

National Football Stadium

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the timetable for reaching a final decision on the site of a proposed national football stadium in England.

Baroness Blackstone: Patrick Carter is currently continuing discussions with the Football Association on the future of the national stadium project arising from the conclusions of his review of that project. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement on the extent of any future government role in that project once those discussions have conclued and she has discussed the issue further with both Sport England and the Football Association.

Historical Manuscripts Commission: Annual Review 2000-01

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the annual review 2000-01 published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission.

Baroness Blackstone: I welcome the Historical Manuscripts Commission's annual review for 2000-01. This is a valuable account of the work undertaken by the commission over the past year.

Import Inspections

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether more inspectors have been employed at ports of entry to deal with food imports coming into this country since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and to specify the respective numbers and places at which they are deployed; and
	When they will respond to the question for Written Answer tabled by Baroness Byford on 28 June.

Lord Whitty: This information is not held centrally. All products of animal origin imported from third countries into the UK must enter, and are subject to veterinary inspections, at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs). The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority. Central government has no powers to instruct the local authority over the number of inspectors. However, the BIP has to be approved by the European Commission, which conducts periodic inspection missions, and which has to be satisfied that the inspection services are adequate. If they are not, the approval of the BIP may be suspended. Central government may also suspend the approval if inspection services are inadequate, reporting its action to the Commission.
	Products of animal origin produced within the EU may circulate freely in the single market and are not subject to border checks. They are subject to checks at the point of destination within the UK.
	In respect of food not of animal origin, the Food Standards Agency monitors general food enforcement activity by all local authorities, including port health authorities, and has recently begun a programme of audits to provide more detailed information on enforcement standards.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is co-ordinating action across government to improve our ability to detect and prevent illegal imports. Improved publicity for travellers has been introduced. Posters have been placed at main airports and information is being provided by the travel industry and FCO posts abroad. National legislation has been amended to make it easier for local authorities to act when illegally imported products of animal origin are found and the Food Standards Agency is encouraging local authorities to ensure that checks for illegal imports are part of their routine inspections of food premises. An improved system of sharing and analysis of information has been introduced to enable enforcement bodies to better target action. We are also looking at other ways in which enforcement of import controls may be improved.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give the total cost to public funds so far of the foot and mouth epidemic, indicating separately the costs of compensation to farmers, cost of services provided by the Ministry of Defence, and the total paid to all civilian contractors.

Lord Whitty: Unfortunately not all the information is held in the form requested. However, to date the cost of the foot and mouth epidemic for DEFRA stands at £1.567 billion (excluding the cost of the livestock welfare disposal scheme). From this amount £1.051 billion has been paid out as compensation to farmers, and £348 million has been paid out to civilian contractors.
	For providing military assistance, the Ministry of Defence charges departments only for costs such as overtime, allowances and travel and subsistence which as of 31 July stood at £5.34 million. The full cost of FMD to the MoD is expected to be approximately an additional £12 million but the final figure will not be known for some time yet.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccine Tests

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are aware of any tests or field trials of foot and mouth vaccines in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2001; if so who carried out the tests; and in which localities.

Lord Whitty: The only organisations licensed to work with live FMD virus in the United Kingdom are the IAH Pirbright laboratory and the Merial Animal Health Company's vaccine manufacturing laboratory which is adjacent to, but separate from, the IAH laboratory. Both organisations are licensed by the Government to work under conditions of maximum biosecurity and are independently monitored.
	Routine animal testing of FMD vaccines is carried out exclusively in the high security containment facilities of the IAH Pirbright laboratory. These laboratories have operated safely and successfully for many years. We know of no field trials of FMD vaccine conducted in the UK between 1999 and 2001, or indeed at any other time previously. The IAH laboratory carries out diagnostic testing, molecular epidemiology and a range of research activities, including vaccine research. The Merial laboratory routinely manufactures vaccines, including inactivated FMD vaccines.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Foreign Veterinarians

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In relation to foreign veterinarians who offered assistance during the foot and mouth outbreak, how many were refused because they did not have a current driving licence valid for use in the United Kingdom; and which countries they came from.

Lord Whitty: This Government have no record of any foreign veterinarians who offered assistance during the foot and mouth outbreak having been refused because they did not have a current driving licence valid for use in the UK.

Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the recommendations made in the Rural White Paper will be supported by the findings of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food chaired by Sir Don Curry.

Lord Whitty: The independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food has been asked to report by the end of the year. We do not know what it will recommend.

Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to respond to the Policy Commission chaired by Sir Don Curry.

Lord Whitty: The Policy Commission on Food and Farming intends to report by 31 December. Once the independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food has reported, we will want to give careful consideration to the recommendations and respond as soon as possible.

Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship Framework Curriculum

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With reference to the new personal, social and health education and citizenship curriculum--
	(a) why there is no mention of the civic responsibilities of both fathers and mothers in relation to the parenting of their children; (b) whether they will issue guidelines to schools which will clarify the rights, duties and responsibilities of mothers and fathers respectively towards their children; and (c) whether they will provide schools with research evidence about the ways in which the actions and omissions of parents may affect the life chances of their children.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Our framework for personal, social and health education for all key stages and citizenship at key stages 1 and 2 recognises that in-school provision should complement the personal and social development of pupils provided at home. Opportunities exist within the framework, under the heading "Developing good relationships and respecting the differences between people", for pupils to be taught for example:
	(a) at key stage 2, about the different types of relationships, including marriage and those between friends and families, and to develop the skills to be effective in relationships; (b) at key stage 3, about the role and feelings of parents and carers and the value of family life; and (c) at key stage 4, about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children as well as the role and responsibilities of a parent, and the qualities of good parenting and its value to family life.
	Our framework refers to "parents" and therefore applies equally to both fathers and mothers. We believe our framework provides teachers with the flexibility to discuss the issues the noble Lord raises. We rely on teachers' professionalism to choose appropriate materials to support their teaching.